Trump is normalizing things that would have been scandals in his first term
Trump is normalizing things that would have been scandals in his first term
The Shifting Standards of Loyalty
Trump is normalizing things that would – Donald Trump’s second term has seen a marked shift in the public perception of his conduct, with actions once deemed scandalous now appearing as routine. This transformation is evident in his recent comments about the Supreme Court, where he implied that justices he appointed should prioritize his interests over impartiality. The remark, made in a social media post over the weekend, reflects a broader trend: Trump is redefining what constitutes loyalty, turning once-unthinkable demands into accepted norms.
“
They have to do the right thing,” Trump said of the justices, “
but it’s really OK for them to be loyal to the person that appointed them to ‘almost’ the highest position in the land, that is, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”
Such a statement would have sparked significant debate in 2017, when Trump’s first term was defined by controversies over his relationship with the FBI. At that time, James Comey, the recently fired director, testified that Trump had explicitly asked for his loyalty during the Russia probe. This moment was pivotal because it highlighted a conflict between the president’s authority and the FBI’s independence, a principle that was once sacrosanct.
The incident underscored the tension between Trump’s leadership and institutional checks. Comey’s investigation of the president had already drawn scrutiny, and Trump’s demand for loyalty seemed to contradict the notion of impartiality. Yet, despite the uproar, Trump’s team dismissed the claim, with legal advisors insisting that the president had not actually said those words. Marc Kasowitz, Trump’s lawyer, even stated that the president’s team was not merely playing with semantics but seeking clarity on the exact phrasing.
The Decade of Normalization
Nine years later, Trump’s latest remarks about the Supreme Court carry less weight. The public, accustomed to a steady stream of provocative statements, has grown desensitized to the idea of a president pressuring judicial figures for allegiance. This gradual erosion of outrage is the result of a decade-long campaign to reframe controversial behavior as standard operating procedure.
Trump’s ability to normalize these actions is rooted in his persistent focus on amplifying divisions and framing criticism as partisan. For instance, he has consistently portrayed Democratic-appointed justices as politically biased, contrasting them with his own nominees. This narrative has allowed him to downplay rulings that challenge his policies, such as the recent decisions against his tariff strategies. By aligning loyalty with his appointments, Trump has positioned himself as the ultimate authority on judicial integrity.
“
I don’t want loyalty, but I do want and expect it for our Country.”
Yet the message is clear: while Trump claims a broader sense of national loyalty, his actions suggest otherwise. He has consistently prioritized personal allegiance, as seen in his focus on justices he appointed. For example, he omitted Chief Justice John Roberts, a Trump-nominated figure who had also ruled against him on tariffs, highlighting a selective emphasis on loyalty. This underscores how Trump’s rhetoric has evolved from individual claims to systemic expectations.
The comparison between 2017 and 2026 reveals a stark contrast in how Trump’s conduct is received. In the first term, Comey’s testimony was a flashpoint, with Trump and his allies scrambling to distance themselves from the implication of bias. The president himself denied the claim, saying, “I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say, ‘I want you to pledge allegiance,’” and adding, “
It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that.”
These denials were part of a larger effort to minimize the fallout, but the public’s reaction was sharp. The incident was seen as a breach of trust in the FBI, a symbol of the institution’s independence. Today, however, similar provocations are met with muted responses. The Supreme Court, though not actively investigating Trump, has played a critical role in shaping key policies and even addressing his potential legal liability. Trump’s pressure on the court, therefore, carries different implications than his pressure on Comey.
From Scandal to Standard
Trump’s approach to normalizing controversial behavior has been methodical. He has transformed politically motivated investigations into a routine tool, moving from the “emoluments” controversy in 2017 to a more brazen disregard for ethics rules in 2026. What was once seen as a potential scandal — such as the White House’s financial ties to foreign governments — is now framed as a necessary aspect of his leadership.
Similarly, Trump has redefined the role of the executive branch, pushing the boundaries of authority. His mass firings of inspectors general, once a symbol of administrative accountability, are now accepted as a way to consolidate power. In 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley had defended the independence of these officials, but by 2026, the same practice is viewed with indifference. The acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, has even treated such actions as a matter of routine, reflecting a shift in the political landscape.
Trump’s strategy has also extended to the judicial branch. A decade of escalating pressure has made politically oriented pardons seem less extraordinary. What once would have prompted congressional investigations is now a tool for advancing his agenda without scrutiny. The same applies to his rhetoric on xenophobia, which has grown increasingly overt over the years. These shifts demonstrate a broader normalization of actions that were once considered exceptional.
At the heart of this transformation is Trump’s ability to reframe criticism. By emphasizing loyalty to his appointees, he has turned the Supreme Court into a battleground for ideological alignment. While the FBI director’s loyalty was a direct challenge to his leadership, the justices’ allegiance is now seen as a natural extension of the president’s influence. This distinction highlights how Trump has recalibrated the expectations of power, using the same principles to justify different outcomes.
Ultimately, the normalization of Trump’s conduct reflects a decade of gradual shifts in public and political sentiment. What was once a groundbreaking assertion of control has now become a familiar refrain, with the public less inclined to react as strongly to repeated provocations. This evolution underscores the power of consistency in shaping perceptions, turning once-unthinkable actions into accepted norms. The Supreme Court, once a symbol of impartiality, now stands as a testament to this transformation.
As Trump continues to push the envelope, the question remains: how far will the public allow his actions to go before they become a new standard? The answer lies in the decade of provocations that have shaped the current climate, where loyalty is not just expected but demanded as a routine part of governance.
